1: %%%Begin Macros
2: \newcommand{\half}{\mbox{$\frac{1}{2}$}}
3: %%%End Macros
4: %% ****** Start of file template.aps ****** %
5: %%
6: %%
7: %% This file is part of the APS files in the REVTeX 4 distribution.
8: %% Version 4.0 of REVTeX, August 2001
9: %%
10: %%
11: %% Copyright (c) 2001 The American Physical Society.
12: %%
13: %% See the REVTeX 4 README file for restrictions and more information.
14: %%
15: %
16: % This is a template for producing manuscripts for use with REVTEX 4.0
17: % Copy this file to another name and then work on that file.
18: % That way, you always have this original template file to use.
19: %
20: % Group addresses by affiliation; use superscriptaddress for long
21: % author lists, or if there are many overlapping affiliations.
22: % For Phys. Rev. appearance, change preprint to twocolumn.
23: % Choose pra, prb, prc, prd, pre, prl, prstab, or rmp for journal
24: % Add 'draft' option to mark overfull boxes with black boxes
25: % Add 'showpacs' option to make PACS codes appear
26: % Add 'showkeys' option to make keywords appear
27: \documentclass[aps,prl,groupedaddress,showpacs,nofootinbib,%%]{revtex4}%
28: preprint,showpacs,showkeys]{revtex4}
29: % twocolumn,showpacs,showkeys]{revtex4}
30: %\documentclass[aps,prl,preprint,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}
31: %\documentclass[aps,prl,twocolumn,groupedaddress]{revtex4}
32: \usepackage{graphicx}
33: \usepackage{amsmath}
34: \usepackage{bm}
35: % You should use BibTeX and apsrev.bst for references
36: % Choosing a journal automatically selects the correct APS
37: % BibTeX style file (bst file), so only uncomment the line
38: % below if necessary.
39: %%%%%%\bibliographystyle{apsrev}
40:
41: \begin{document}
42: % Use the \preprint command to place your local institutional report
43: % number in the upper righthand corner of the title page in preprint mode.
44: % Multiple \preprint commands are allowed.
45: % Use the 'preprintnumbers' class option to override journal defaults
46: % to display numbers if necessary
47: \preprint{ANL-HEP-PR-02-035}
48:
49: %Title of paper
50: \title{ Radiative decay of $\bm{\Upsilon(nS)}$ into $\bm{S}$-wave
51: sbottomonium}
52:
53: % repeat the \author .. \affiliation etc. as needed
54: % \email, \thanks, \homepage, \altaffiliation all apply to the current
55: % author. Explanatory text should go in the []'s, actual e-mail
56: % address or url should go in the {}'s for \email and \homepage.
57: % Please use the appropriate macro foreach each type of information
58:
59: % \affiliation command applies to all authors since the last
60: % \affiliation command. The \affiliation command should follow the
61: % other information
62: % \affiliation can be followed by \email, \homepage, \thanks as well.
63: \author{Edmond L. Berger, Geoffrey T. Bodwin, and Jungil Lee}
64: %\email[]{Your e-mail address}
65: %\homepage[]{Your web page}
66: %\thanks{}
67: %\altaffiliation{}
68: \affiliation{
69: HEP Division,
70: Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, Illinois
71: 60439 }
72:
73: %Collaboration name if desired (requires use of superscriptaddress
74: %option in \documentclass). \noaffiliation is required (may also be
75: %used with the \author command).
76: %\collaboration can be followed by \email, \homepage, \thanks as well.
77: %\collaboration{}
78: %\noaffiliation
79:
80: \date{\today}
81:
82: \begin{abstract}
83: % insert abstract here
84: A calculation is presented of the radiative decay of the $\Upsilon(nS)$
85: into a bound state of bottom squarks. Predictions are provided of the
86: branching fraction as a function of the masses of the bottom squark and
87: the gluino. Branching fractions as large as several times $10^{-4}$ are
88: obtained for supersymmetric particle masses in the range suggested by
89: the analysis of bottom-quark production cross sections. Data
90: are shown that limit the range of allowed masses. Forthcoming
91: high-statistics data from the CLEO Collaboration offer possibilities
92: of discovery or significant new bounds on the existence and masses of
93: supersymmetric particles.
94: \end{abstract}
95:
96: % insert suggested PACS numbers in braces on next line
97: \pacs{14.80.Ly, 12.38.Bx, 14.40.Gx, 13.25.Gv}
98: % insert suggested keywords - APS authors don't need to do this
99: \keywords{Upsilon decay, Bottom squark, Gluino, Quarkonium}
100:
101: %\maketitle must follow title, authors, abstract, \pacs, and \keywords
102: \maketitle
103:
104: % body of paper here - Use proper section commands
105: % References should be done using the \cite, \ref, and \label commands
106:
107: A long-standing puzzle in high-energy strong interactions is the fact
108: that the rate for bottom quark ($b\bar{b}$) production at the Fermilab
109: Tevatron collider is two to three times greater than the theoretical
110: prediction from quantum chromodynamics (QCD)
111: %\cite{Mangano:jk,Frixione:1994nb,Frixione:1997ma,Nason:1999ta}.
112: \cite{Frixione:1994nb}. The next-to-leading order QCD contributions are
113: large, and a combination of further higher-order effects in production
114: and/or fragmentation may eventually reduce the discrepancy~\cite{frag}.
115: An alternative explanation is offered in
116: Ref.~\cite{Berger:2000mp} in the context of physics beyond the standard
117: model. There, it is argued that a solution may be provided by the
118: existence of a light bottom squark $\tilde b$ and a light gluino
119: $\tilde{g}$, with masses in the ranges $2~\hbox{GeV} < m_{\tilde{b}}
120: <5.5~\hbox{GeV}$ and $12~\hbox{GeV} < m_{\tilde{g}} <16~\hbox{GeV}$. The
121: $\tilde g$ and the $\tilde b$ are the spin-1/2 and spin-0 supersymmetric
122: partners of the gluon ($g$) and bottom quark ($b$). The masses of all
123: other supersymmetric particles are assumed to be arbitrarily heavy,
124: i.e., of order the electroweak scale or greater~\cite{Berger:2000mp}.
125: While this scenario is not among the more popular schemes for
126: supersymmetry breaking, the hypothesis of a light bottom squark is not
127: inconsistent with direct experimental searches and indirect constraints
128: from other
129: observables~\cite{light-sb,CLEO-sb,DELPHI-sb,Berger,Berger:2002vs}.
130: Therefore, it is essential either to confirm
131: or to refute this proposal by examining its implications for additional
132: processes. In this Letter, we show that high-statistics data being
133: accumulated and analyzed now at the Cornell Electron Storage Ring (CESR)
134: facility~\cite{CLEO-c} could provide definitive confirmation of the
135: proposal of Ref.~\cite{Berger:2000mp} or severely constrain the allowed
136: parameter space~\cite{directdecays}.
137:
138: In the proposal of Ref.~\cite{Berger:2000mp}, it is possible that the bottom
139: squark is relatively stable and, hence, bound states of a bottom
140: squark and bottom antisquark (sbottomonium) could exist. These bound states
141: could be produced in radiative decays of bottomonium states, such as
142: $\Upsilon \rightarrow \tilde{S} \gamma$, where $\tilde{S}$ is the $S$-wave
143: bound state of a $\tilde{b} \tilde{b}^*$ pair. Alternatively, the $\tilde{b}$
144: could decay promptly via $R$-parity and baryon-number
145: violation~\cite{Berger:2000mp,Berger}, and no bound state would be formed.
146:
147: In this Letter, we compute the rate for an $\Upsilon(nS)$ to decay
148: radiatively into an $S$-wave $\tilde{b} \tilde{b}^*$ bound state.
149: %The rate depends on $m_{\tilde b}$ and $m_{\tilde{g}}$, with $m_{\tilde{g}}$
150: %entering because the gluino is exchanged in the relevant decay subprocesses.
151: We show that, provided that a bound state is formed, the resonance search
152: by the CUSB Collaboration~\cite{CUSB-gamma} already increases the allowed
153: lower bounds on $m_{\tilde{b}}$ and $m_{\tilde{g}}$.
154: Discovery of the bound states may be possible with the high-statistics
155: 2002 CLEO-c data set, or a larger
156: range of bottom-squark and gluino masses may be disfavored.
157:
158: The mass eigenstates of the bottom squarks, $\tilde{b}_1$ and
159: $\tilde{b}_2$, are mixtures of $\tilde{b}_L$ and $\tilde{b}_R$, the
160: supersymmetry partners the left-handed (L) and right-handed (R) bottom
161: quarks:
162: %The mixing is expressed as
163: \begin{subequations}
164: \begin{eqnarray}
165: |\tilde{b}_1\rangle = \sin\theta_{\tilde{b}}|\tilde{b}_L\rangle +
166: \cos\theta_{\tilde{b}}|\tilde{b}_R\rangle, \\
167: |\tilde{b}_2\rangle = \cos\theta_{\tilde{b}}|\tilde{b}_L\rangle -
168: \sin\theta_{\tilde{b}}|\tilde{b}_R\rangle.
169: \label{eq:mixing}
170: \end{eqnarray}
171: \end{subequations}
172: We take $\tilde{b}_1$ to be the eigenstate of lighter mass, and we drop
173: the subscript 1 in the remainder of this paper. The mixing angle
174: $\theta_{\tilde{b}}$ is constrained by the requirement that the coupling
175: of a $\tilde b\tilde b^*$ pair to the $Z$ boson be sufficiently small to
176: be compatible with data~\cite{light-sb}. At lowest order (tree-level), this
177: requirement implies that
178: %$\sin^2\theta_{\tilde{b}} \approx 1/6$~\cite{Cao:2001rz,comment}.
179: $\sin^2\theta_{\tilde{b}} \approx 1/6$~\cite{Cao:2001rz}.
180: \footnote{
181: In the first paper of Ref.~\cite{Cao:2001rz}, it is argued that one-loop
182: contributions may render the light $\tilde{g}$ and light $\tilde{b}$
183: scenario inconsistent with data at the $2\sigma$ level, unless the mass
184: of the heavier ${\tilde{b}}_2$ is less than about 125 GeV. Making
185: somwhat different assumptions, the authors of the second paper obtain a
186: $5\sigma$ bound of 180 GeV and the author of the third paper obtains a
187: $3\sigma$ bound of more than 200 GeV. The possibility that the mass of
188: the ${\tilde{b}}_2$ could be as low as 100 GeV or so is not excluded by
189: data. Analysis of data from $e^+ e^-$ interactions at LEP, for example,
190: would require first a detailed modeling of the decay modes of the
191: ${\tilde{b}}_2$.}
192:
193: We calculate the decay rate $\Gamma(\Upsilon\rightarrow
194: \tilde{S} \gamma)$ in the framework of the nonrelativistic QCD (NRQCD)
195: factorization formalism \cite{BBL}.
196: \footnote{One can adapt the NRQCD
197: formalism for spin-1/2 quarks to the case of spin-0 squarks by dropping
198: the spin-dependent interactions and replacing Pauli fields with scalar
199: fields.}
200: First, we
201: compute the amplitude in full QCD for the process $b(p)+\bar{b}(p)\to
202: \tilde{b}(q) +\tilde{b}^{*}(q)+\gamma(k)$. Typical Feynman diagrams
203: are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:feynman}. The indices $i$, $j$,
204: $k$, and $l$ label the colors of the incident $b$ and $\bar{b}$ and the
205: final $\tilde{b}$ and $\tilde{b}^*$, respectively. The color index of the
206: exchanged gluino is $a$. The Feynman rules~\cite{directdecays} depend on the
207: mixing angle $\theta_{\tilde{b}}$.
208:
209: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
210: % FIG 1
211: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
212: \begin{figure}%[ht]
213: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{nfig1.ps}
214: %%%%\includegraphics[width=6.5cm]{fig1.ps}
215: \caption{Feynman diagrams for the process
216: $b\overline{b}\to \tilde{b} {\tilde{b}}^*\gamma$. }
217: \label{fig:feynman}
218: \end{figure}
219: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
220:
221: We carry out the computation in the $b\bar b$ rest frame and choose the
222: radiation gauge. Then, the photon-$\tilde{b}$-$\tilde{b}^*$ vertex
223: vanishes, since it is proportional to $\epsilon^*\cdot
224: (2q+k)=\epsilon^*\cdot (2p)$, where $\epsilon$ is the polarization of
225: the photon. Therefore, we need to compute only the two diagrams of the
226: type in Fig.~\ref{fig:feynman}(a), in which the photon attaches to
227: the $b$ or the $\bar{b}$. We make use of the spin-triplet projector
228: \cite{projop}
229: %,Guberina:1980dc,Berger:1980ni}
230: \begin{eqnarray}
231: %%%%&&
232: \sum_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2}u({\bf p},\lambda_1)\bar{v}(-{\bf p},\lambda_2)
233: \langle \half\,\lambda_1\,\half\, \lambda_2
234: |1\,\epsilon_\Upsilon\rangle
235: %%%%\nonumber\\
236: %%%%&&
237: =-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\not\!\epsilon_\Upsilon(\not\! p-m_b),
238: \end{eqnarray}
239: where $\epsilon_\Upsilon$ is the polarization of the $b\bar b$ system,
240: the Dirac spinors $u(p,s_1)$ and $v(p,s_2)$ have the relativistic
241: normalization $\bar u(p,s) u(p,s)=\bar v(p,s) v(p,s) = 2E_b(p)$, and
242: %\begin{equation}
243: $E_i(p)=\sqrt{{\bf p}^2_i+m_i^2}$.
244: %\end{equation}
245: Projecting onto color-singlet $b\bar b$ and $\tilde b \tilde b^*$ states,
246: which leads to the color factor
247: %%%\begin{eqnarray}
248: %%%\frac{\delta_{ij}}{\sqrt{N_c}}\frac{\delta_{kl}}{\sqrt{N_c}}
249: %%%T^a_{ki}T^a_{jl}=\frac{N_c^2-1}{2N_c}=\frac{4}{3},
250: %%%\end{eqnarray}
251: $(\delta_{ij}\delta_{kl}/N_c)T^a_{ki}T^a_{jl}=\frac{4}{3}$,
252: we find that the amplitude in full QCD is
253: \begin{eqnarray}
254: \mathcal{M}=i\frac{16\sqrt{2}}{3m_{\tilde{g}}} g_s^2 e e_b
255: \sin\theta_{\tilde{b}}\cos\theta_{\tilde{b}}\;
256: \epsilon\cdot\epsilon_\Upsilon .
257: \end{eqnarray}
258: We use plane-wave states for the quarks, squarks, and
259: photon, without any factors $1/(2E)$. Squaring the matrix element
260: and averaging over the polarizations of the $\Upsilon$, we obtain
261: \begin{eqnarray}
262: \overline{|\mathcal{M}|^2}=
263: \frac{1024}{27 m_{\tilde{g}}^2} g_s^4 e^2 e^2_b
264: \sin^2\theta_{\tilde{b}}\cos^2\theta_{\tilde{b}}.
265: \label{me-squared}
266: \end{eqnarray}
267:
268: We match the squared matrix element in Eq.~(\ref{me-squared}) onto NRQCD
269: for the $b\bar{b}$ system in the $b\bar b$ rest frame and onto NRQCD for the
270: $\tilde{b} \tilde{b}^*$ system in the $\tilde b \tilde b^*$ rest frame
271: using, respectively,
272: \begin{eqnarray}
273: \overline{|{\cal M}|^2}&=&
274: F_1({}^3S_1)\langle b\bar b|{\cal O}_1({}^3S_1)|b\bar b\rangle,\\
275: %%%%$\overline{|{\cal M}|^2}=
276: %%%%F_1({}^3S_1)\langle b\bar b|{\cal O}_1({}^3S_1)|b\bar b\rangle$
277: \overline{|{\cal M}|^2}&=&
278: \tilde F_1({}^1S_0)\langle 0|\tilde{\cal O}_1^{\tilde b\tilde b^*}
279: ({}^1S_0)|0\rangle.
280: \end{eqnarray}
281: %%%%$\overline{|{\cal M}|^2}=
282: %%%%\tilde F_1({}^1S_0)\langle 0|\tilde{\cal O}_1^{\tilde b\tilde b^*}
283: %%%%({}^1S_0)|0\rangle$
284: Here, $F_1$ and $\tilde F_1$ are short-distance coefficients,
285: ${\cal O}_1({}^3S_1)$ is a four-quark operator, and $\tilde{\cal O}_1^{\tilde
286: b\tilde b^*}({}^1S_0)$ is a four-squark operator:
287: \begin{eqnarray}
288: \mathcal{O}_1(^3S_1)&=&
289: \psi^\dagger \sigma^k \chi\chi^\dagger \sigma^k\psi,
290: \\
291: \tilde{\mathcal{O}}_1^{\tilde{b}\tilde{b}^*}(^1S_0)&=&
292: \tilde{\chi}^*\tilde{\psi}
293: \sum_{X}|\tilde{b}\tilde{b}^*+X\rangle\langle\tilde{b}\tilde{b}^*+X|
294: \tilde{\psi}^*\tilde{\chi} .
295: \end{eqnarray}
296: The Pauli field $\psi$ annihilates a $b$ quark, the Pauli field
297: $\chi$ creates a $b$ antiquark, the scalar field $\tilde\psi$
298: annihilates a $b$ squark, the scalar field $\tilde \chi$ creates a $b$
299: squark, and the sum is over all intermediate states $X$. The
300: short-distance coefficient $F_1({}^3S_1)$ for the $b\bar b$ operator
301: contains $\langle 0|\tilde{\cal O}_1^{\tilde b\tilde
302: b^*}({}^1S_0)|0\rangle$, and the short-distance coefficient for the
303: $\tilde b \tilde b^*$ operator $\tilde F_1({}^1S_0)$ contains $\langle
304: b\bar b|{\cal O}_1({}^3S_1)|b\bar b\rangle$.
305: %The matrix elements are evaluated
306: In the Born approximation, the matrix elements are
307: \begin{eqnarray}
308: \langle b\bar b|{\cal O}_1({}^3S_1)|b\bar b\rangle &=&
309: 2(2E_b)^2N_c,\\
310: \langle 0|\tilde{\cal O}_1^{\tilde b\tilde b^*}
311: ({}^1S_0)|0\rangle &=& (2\tilde{E}_{\tilde{b}})^2 N_c,
312: \end{eqnarray}
313: %%%%$\langle b\bar b|{\cal O}_1({}^3S_1)|b\bar b\rangle =
314: %%%%2(2E_b)^2N_c$ and
315: %%%%$\langle 0|\tilde{\cal O}_1^{\tilde b\tilde b^*}
316: %%%%({}^1S_0)|0\rangle = (2\tilde{E}_{\tilde{b}})^2 N_c$,
317: where $\tilde{E}_{\tilde{b}}$ is the energy of
318: $\tilde{b}(\tilde{b}^*)$ in the $\tilde{b}\tilde{b}^*$ rest frame.
319: The factors $2E_b$ and $2\tilde{E}_{\tilde{b}}$ appear
320: because the free-particle states are normalized to
321: $2E$ particles per unit volume.
322: The factors $N_c$ come from the color traces, and the
323: additional factor $2$ in the $b\bar b$ case comes from the spin trace.
324: From this matching process, we deduce that
325: \begin{eqnarray}
326: \overline{|\mathcal{M}|^2}
327: %%%%&=&
328: =
329: \frac{512}{243 m_{\tilde{g}}^2(2E_b)^2(2\tilde{E}_{\tilde{b}})^2}
330: g_s^4 e^2 e^2_b
331: \sin^2\theta_{\tilde{b}}\cos^2\theta_{\tilde{b}}\;
332: %%%%\nonumber\\
333: %%%%&&\times
334: \langle b\bar{b}| \mathcal{O}_1(^3S_1)
335: |b\bar{b}\rangle
336: \langle 0| \tilde{\mathcal{O}}_1^{\tilde{b}\tilde{b}^*}(^1S_0)
337: |0\rangle.
338: \end{eqnarray}
339:
340: To compute the decay rate of the process $\Upsilon\to \tilde{S} \gamma$,
341: we replace the $b\bar b$ state by the $\Upsilon$ state and replace the
342: $\tilde b \tilde b^*$ state by the $\tilde S$ state in the squared
343: matrix element, multiply by the two-body phase
344: $\Phi_2=(1/8\pi)[1-(M_{\tilde S}^2/M_\Upsilon^2)]$, and multiply by
345: $2M_{\tilde S}$, where
346: $M_{\tilde S}$ is the mass of the $\tilde b \tilde b^*$ bound state, and
347: $M_\Upsilon$ is the $\Upsilon$ mass.
348: \footnote{The factor $2M_{\tilde{S}}$ appears for the following reason.
349: The $\tilde S$ state is normalized to one particle per unit volume in
350: the $\tilde S$ rest frame. In order to preserve that normalization in
351: the $\Upsilon$ rest frame, one must multiply by the
352: Lorentz-contraction factor for the volume, namely,
353: $2M_{\tilde{S}}/(2E_{\tilde{S}})$, where
354: $E_{\tilde{S}}$ is the energy of the $\tilde{S}$ in the $\Upsilon$ rest frame.
355: The factor
356: $1/(2E_{\tilde{S}})$ is absorbed
357: into the conventional definition of the phase space.}
358: The result is
359: \begin{eqnarray}
360: \Gamma(\Upsilon{\hspace{-0.5ex}}\to{\hspace{-0.5ex}}\tilde{S} \gamma)=
361: \hspace{-0.5ex}
362: \frac{256\pi^2e_b^2\alpha\alpha_s^2}{243}
363: \sin^2\theta_{\tilde{b}}\cos^2\theta_{\tilde{b}}
364: \frac{
365: \langle \Upsilon| \mathcal{O}_1(^3S_1) |\Upsilon\rangle
366: \langle 0| \tilde{\mathcal{O}}_1^{\tilde{S}}(^1S_0) |0\rangle
367: }{E_b^2 \tilde{E}_{\tilde{b}}^2 m_{\tilde{g} }^2}
368: (2M_{\tilde S})
369: \hspace{-0.5ex}
370: \left(1-\frac{M_{\tilde S}^2}{M_\Upsilon^2}\right).
371: \label{rate}
372: \end{eqnarray}
373:
374: If one considers specific polarizations of the
375: $\Upsilon$, then the decay rate is no longer independent of the angle
376: $\theta$ between the photon and the axis that defines the direction of
377: longitudinal polarization. (In $\Upsilon$ production in $e^+e^-$
378: annihilation, for example, the polarization is transverse to the beam
379: direction.) In the case of equal population of the two transverse
380: polarization states, $d\Gamma/d(\cos\theta)=(3/8)(1+\cos^2\theta)\Gamma$,
381: while in the case of longitudinal polarization,
382: $d\Gamma/d(\cos\theta)=(3/4)(1-\cos^2\theta)\Gamma$, where $\Gamma$ is
383: found in Eq.~(\ref{rate}).
384:
385: Using the nonrelativistic approximations $E_b\approx m_b$
386: and $\tilde{E}_{\tilde{b}}\approx m_{\tilde{b}}$
387: in Eq.~(\ref{rate}),
388: we obtain the
389: branching fraction
390: \begin{eqnarray}
391: \textrm{Br}(\Upsilon\to\tilde{S} \gamma)
392: &=&
393: \frac{\Gamma(\Upsilon\to\tilde{S} \gamma)}
394: {\Gamma(\Upsilon\to \mu^+ \mu^-)}\times\,
395: \textrm{Br}(\Upsilon\to \mu^+ \mu^-)_{\textrm{Exp}}
396: \nonumber\\
397: &=&
398: \frac{64\pi\alpha_s^2}{81\alpha }
399: \sin^2\theta_{\tilde{b}}\cos^2\theta_{\tilde{b}}
400: \frac{
401: \langle 0| \tilde{\mathcal{O}}_1^{\tilde{S}}(^1S_0) |0\rangle
402: }{m_b^2 m_{\tilde{b}}^2 m_{\tilde{g} }^2}\;M_\Upsilon^2\,M_{\tilde{S}}
403: \nonumber\\
404: &&\hbox{}\times
405: \left(1-\frac{ M_{\tilde S}^2 }{ M_\Upsilon^2 }\right)
406: \textrm{Br}(\Upsilon\to \mu^+ \mu^-)_{\textrm{Exp}}\,.
407: \label{bf}
408: \end{eqnarray}
409: In deriving Eq.~(\ref{bf}) we use
410: \begin{eqnarray}
411: \Gamma(\Upsilon\to \mu^+ \mu^-)=
412: \frac{8\pi e_b^2\alpha^2}{3}
413: \frac{\langle \Upsilon|\psi^\dagger\sigma^k\chi|0\rangle
414: \langle 0|\chi^\dagger\sigma^k\psi|\Upsilon\rangle
415: }{M_\Upsilon^2}
416: \end{eqnarray}
417: and take the vacuum-saturation approximation
418: \begin{equation}
419: \langle\Upsilon|{\cal O}_1({}^3S_1)|\Upsilon\rangle\approx
420: \langle \Upsilon|\psi^\dagger\sigma^k\chi|0\rangle
421: \langle 0|\chi^\dagger\sigma^k\psi|\Upsilon\rangle,
422: \end{equation}
423: which neglects terms of relative order $v^4$. Here, and throughout this
424: paper, $v$ is the heavy-quark or heavy-squark velocity in the onium rest
425: frame.
426: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
427: % FIG 2
428: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
429: \begin{figure}%[ht]
430: \begin{tabular}{cc}
431: \includegraphics[height=6cm]{nfig2.ps}
432: \end{tabular}
433: \caption{
434: Branching fraction for the process
435: $\Upsilon\to\tilde{S} \gamma$ as
436: a function of $M_{\tilde{S}}$.
437: The shaded area is excluded at the 90\% confidence level by the
438: $\Upsilon\to X \gamma$ search of the CUSB Collaboration~\cite{CUSB-gamma}.}
439: \label{fig:BR}
440: \end{figure}
441:
442: In the vacuum-saturation
443: approximation, the color-singlet production matrix
444: element $\langle 0| \tilde{\mathcal{O}}_1^{\tilde{S}}({}^1S_0) |0\rangle$
445: may be replaced by the corresponding decay matrix element
446: $\langle \tilde{S}| \tilde{\mathcal{O}}_1({}^1S_0)
447: |\tilde{S}\rangle$, with uncertainties of relative order
448: $v^4$. Furthermore, the sbottomonium decay matrix element $\langle \tilde{S}|
449: \tilde{\mathcal{O}}_1({}^1S_0)|\tilde{S}\rangle$ is related to the
450: heavy-quarkonium (HQ) matrix element of the same mass by
451: \begin{eqnarray}
452: \langle \tilde{S}| \tilde{\mathcal{O}}_1({}^1S_0)
453: |\tilde{S}\rangle \approx
454: \langle {\rm HQ}| \mathcal{O}_1({}^3S_1) |{\rm HQ}\rangle/2 ,
455: \label{wfn-sq}
456: \end{eqnarray}
457: where we neglect spin-dependent contributions to the HQ matrix element
458: of relative order $v^2$.
459: The expressions on the left and right sides of Eq.~(\ref{wfn-sq}) are
460: proportional to the squares of the sbottomonium and quarkonium
461: wave functions at the origin, respectively. The value of the HQ matrix
462: element is known at the $\Upsilon$ mass. We estimate its value at smaller
463: quarkonium masses by assuming that it scales as $m_q^{3/2}$. This
464: scaling behavior is approximately that which one obtains from the Martin
465: potential \cite{martin}, which describes the $J/\psi$ and $\Upsilon$
466: systems reasonably well. Then we have
467: \begin{eqnarray}
468: \langle \tilde{S}| \tilde{\mathcal{O}}_1({}^1S_0)
469: |\tilde{S}\rangle
470: \approx
471: \left(\frac{m_{\tilde{b}}}{m_b}\right)^{3/2}
472: %%%\hspace{-2ex}
473: \langle \Upsilon| \mathcal{O}_1({}^3S_1) |\Upsilon\rangle/2.
474: \label{me-est}
475: \end{eqnarray}
476: We use a recent lattice measurement of the bottomonium matrix
477: element:
478: $\langle \Upsilon| \mathcal{O}_1({}^3S_1) |\Upsilon\rangle%
479: =4.10\pm 0.42\hbox{ GeV}^3$ (Ref.~\cite{BKS-new}).
480:
481: In Fig.~\ref{fig:BR}, we plot the branching fraction (\ref{bf}), for
482: several values of $m_{\tilde g}$, as a
483: function of $M_{\tilde S}\approx 2m_{\tilde b}$,
484: using the estimate of the sbottomonium matrix element in Eq.~(\ref{me-est}).
485: Here, and in all further numerical estimates, we take
486: $\sin^2\theta_{\tilde{b}}=1/6$, $m_b=4.73\pm 0.20$~GeV, $\alpha=1/137$,
487: $\alpha_s=0.2\pm 0.02$, and $\textrm{Br}(\Upsilon\to \mu^+
488: \mu^-)_{\textrm{Exp}}=2.48\pm 0.06\%$ (Ref.\cite{PDG}). This value
489: for $\alpha_s$ corresponds approximately to the renormalization
490: scale $m_b$, which is an upper bound on the momentum transfer in the
491: radiative decay process.
492:
493: In order to compare our result for the branching fraction with the
494: experimental resolution, it is necessary to know the width of the
495: $S$-wave sbottomonium state. The total width into light hadrons is
496: given, in leading order in $\alpha_s$, by the width into two gluons.
497: This quantity is computed, in leading order in the
498: nonrelativistic expansion, by Nappi \cite{nappi}:
499: %--------------------
500: \begin{equation}
501: %--------------------
502: \Gamma\left(\tilde{S}\to gg\right)
503: =
504: \frac{4\alpha^2_s}{3M_{\tilde{S}}^2}
505: \left|R(0)\right|^2,
506: \label{2g}
507: %--------------------
508: \end{equation}
509: %--------------------
510: where $R(0)$ is the $\tilde{S}$ radial wave function at the origin.
511: Using Eq.~(\ref{me-est}) and taking $M_{\tilde{S}}\approx 2m_{\tilde{b}}$, we
512: have
513: %--------------------
514: \begin{eqnarray}
515: %--------------------
516: \left|R(0)\right|^2
517: &=&
518: \frac{4\pi}{N_c}
519: \langle \tilde{S}|\mathcal{\tilde{O}}_1(^1S_0)|\tilde{S}\rangle.
520: \label{r02}
521: %--------------------
522: \end{eqnarray}
523: %--------------------
524: %%%%$\left|R(0)\right|^2 = (4\pi/N_c)
525: %%%% \langle \tilde{S}|\mathcal{\tilde{O}}_1(^1S_0)|\tilde{S}\rangle$.
526: %Our results for the width are somewhat larger than those of Ref.~\cite{nappi}.
527: The width of the sbottomonium
528: state into light hadrons is less than 10~MeV in the range of
529: parameters proposed in the light-bottom-squark scenario~\cite{Berger:2000mp}.
530: This width is
531: less than the energy resolution in the CUSB search for monochromatic
532: photon signals \cite{CUSB-gamma}. Therefore, we can compare our estimate
533: of the branching fraction $\textrm{Br}(\Upsilon\to\tilde{S} \gamma)$
534: directly with the CUSB 90\% confidence level for the exclusion of
535: $\Upsilon\to X \gamma$, which is plotted, along with our
536: estimate, in Fig.~\ref{fig:BR}.
537: We see that, if a bound state is formed,
538: then a part of the range of mass parameters proposed in the
539: light-bottom-squark scenario is disfavored.
540:
541: There are several uncertainties in our calculation. The uncertainty in
542: $\hbox{Br}(\Upsilon\rightarrow\mu^+\mu^-)$ is 2.4\%. The uncertainty in
543: $m_b$ is 4.2\%. The uncertainties in the value of $\alpha_s$ and in the
544: lattice computation of the bottomonium matrix element are each about
545: 10\%. There is also an uncertainty from the extrapolation of the HQ matrix
546: element from $M_\Upsilon$ to $M_{\tilde S}$. We estimate it by checking
547: the accuracy of the extrapolation against the phenomenological values of
548: the wave functions at the origin for the $\Upsilon$ and the $J/\psi$,
549: as determined from the data for the decay rates into lepton pairs
550: combined with the next-to-leading-order QCD expressions for those decay
551: rates. We conclude that the extrapolation error is approximately
552: $31\%\times (M_\Upsilon-M_{\tilde S})/(M_\Upsilon-M_{J/\psi})$. There are
553: uncalculated relativistic corrections of the order of the square of the
554: heavy-quark or squark velocity in the onium rest frame. We estimate
555: these to yield an uncertainty in the decay rate of $20\% \times
556: (M_\Upsilon-M_{\tilde S})/(M_\Upsilon-M_{J/\psi})+10\%$. There are
557: uncertainties from uncalculated corrections of higher order in
558: $\alpha_s$ and from the imprecision in the value of the renormalization
559: scale. We estimate these by varying the scale of $\alpha_s$ from $m_b/2$
560: to $2m_b$. This procedure yields uncertainties in $\alpha_s$ of $+33\%$ and
561: $-18\%$. As $M_{\tilde S}$ approaches $M_\Upsilon$, the momentum
562: transfer in the radiative decay becomes considerably less than $m_b$,
563: and, in this region, our choice of scale probably results in an
564: underestimate of the decay rate. In this same region, we expect to find
565: violations of the NRQCD factorization, which holds only for
566: $M_\Upsilon-M_{\tilde S}\gg \Lambda_{\rm QCD}$.
567: %Nevertheless, our
568: %computation may provide an order-of-magnitude estimate of the decay rate
569: %for mass differences of order $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$.
570:
571: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
572: % FIG 3
573: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
574: \begin{figure}%[ht]
575: \includegraphics[height=6cm]{nfig3.ps}
576: \caption{
577: The regions of the $m_{\tilde{b}}$-$m_{\tilde{g}}$ parameter space that
578: are excluded at the 90\% confidence level by the $\Upsilon\to X \gamma$
579: search of the CUSB Collaboration (shaded region)~\cite{CUSB-gamma}.
580: The solid curve represents
581: the central value of the theoretical calculation, and the dashed curves
582: show the uncertainties on the theoretical values, as described in the text.
583: The strip shows the region $2<m_{\tilde{b}}<5.5$ GeV, $12<m_{\tilde{g}}<16$ GeV
584: proposed in the light-bottom-squark scenario~\cite{Berger:2000mp}.}
585: \label{fig:EXCLUDE}
586: \end{figure}
587: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
588: In Fig.~\ref{fig:EXCLUDE} we show the region excluded by the CUSB data.
589: %as a function of $m_{\tilde g}$ and $m_{\tilde b}$.
590: We calculate the uncertainty band on the boundary of the excluded region
591: by adding, in quadrature, the theoretical uncertainties mentioned above.
592: We also plot the values of $m_{\tilde g}$ and $m_{\tilde b}$ that are
593: suggested in the light-bottom-squark scenario~\cite{Berger:2000mp}. At
594: $m_{\tilde g} = 12$ GeV, provided that the bottom squark lifetime is
595: great enough to permit formation of the $\tilde{b} \tilde{b}^*$ bound
596: state, the mass range $m_{\tilde b} < 3.5^{+0.4}_{-0.6}\hbox{~GeV}$ is
597: excluded at the 90\% confidence level by the CUSB data. At $m_{\tilde g} =
598: 16$ GeV, the central and upper values of the excluded range are
599: $m_{\tilde b} = 3.0$ and $3.6$~GeV, but the theoretical uncertainties do
600: not permit us to specify a lower limit at the 90\% confidence level. One can
601: probe the region of higher bottom-squark masses by increasing the
602: statistics of the photon sample and by examining decays from bottomonium
603: states of higher mass, such as the $\Upsilon(3S)$ and the $\Upsilon(4S)$.
604: \footnote{In order to apply the expression for the
605: branching fraction in Eq.~(\ref{bf}) to decay from a state other than
606: the $\Upsilon$, one must replace $\textrm{Br}(\Upsilon\to \mu^+
607: \mu^-)_{\textrm{Exp}}$ with the rate for the decaying state and replace
608: $m_b$ with one-half the mass of the decaying state.}
609:
610: Bottom squarks with mass $2~\hbox{GeV} < m_{\tilde{b}} <5.5~\hbox{GeV}$
611: along with gluinos with mass $12~\hbox{GeV} < m_{\tilde{g}}
612: <16~\hbox{GeV}$ are proposed in Ref.~\cite{Berger:2000mp} to explain the
613: larger-than-predicted rate for bottom quark ($b\bar{b}$) production at
614: the Fermilab collider. In this Letter, we show that CUSB data on
615: radiative $\Upsilon$ decays already provide an important additional
616: constraint on the mass ranges. The high-statistics 2002 CLEO data should
617: either permit discovery of squarkonium bound states, confirm the
618: exclusion region of the earlier CUSB data, or further narrow the allowed
619: range of supersymmetry parameter space.
620:
621: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
622: % If you have acknowledgments, this puts in the proper section head.
623: \begin{acknowledgments}
624: % put your acknowledgments here.
625: We acknowledge valuable conversations with D.~Besson, R.~Galik, Jik Lee,
626: S.~Nam, D.~Son, and M.~Tuts.
627: Work in the High Energy Physics Division at Argonne National Laboratory
628: is supported by
629: the U.~S.~Department of Energy, Division of High Energy Physics, under
630: Contract No.~W-31-109-ENG-38.
631: \end{acknowledgments}
632: % Create the reference section using BibTeX:
633: \begin{thebibliography}{}
634: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
635:
636: %\cite{Mangano:jk}
637: %\bibitem{Mangano:jk}
638: %M.~L.~Mangano, P.~Nason, and G.~Ridolfi,
639: %``Heavy Quark Correlations In Hadron Collisions At Next-To-Leading
640: %Order,''
641: %Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 373}, 295 (1992).
642: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B373,295;%%
643:
644: %\cite{Frixione:1994nb}
645: \bibitem{Frixione:1994nb}
646: S.~Frixione, M.~L.~Mangano, P.~Nason, and G.~Ridolfi,
647: %``Charm and bottom production: Theoretical results versus experimental
648: %data,''
649: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 431}, 453 (1994);
650: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B431,453;%%
651: %\cite{Frixione:1997ma}
652: %\bibitem{Frixione:1997ma}
653: %S.~Frixione, M.~L.~Mangano, P.~Nason, and G.~Ridolfi,
654: %``Heavy-quark production,''
655: %Adv.\ Ser.\ Direct.\ High Energy Phys.\ {\bf 15}, 609 (1998)
656: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9702287] and references therein.
657: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9702287;%%
658: %\cite{Nason:1999ta}
659: %\bibitem{Nason:1999ta}
660: P.~Nason {\it et al.}, in {\it Proc. of the Workshop on Standard Model Physics
661: (and more) at the LHC, Geneva, 1999}, pp 231-304.
662: %``Bottom production,''
663: %arXiv:hep-ph/0003142.
664: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003142;%%
665:
666: \bibitem{frag}
667: M.~Cacciari and P.~Nason,
668: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 89}, 122003 (2002)
669:
670: %\cite{Berger:2000mp}
671: \bibitem{Berger:2000mp}
672: E.~L.~Berger, B.~W.~Harris, D.~E.~Kaplan, Z.~Sullivan, T.~M.~P.~Tait,
673: and C.~E.~M.~Wagner,
674: %``Low energy supersymmetry and the Tevatron bottom-quark cross section,''
675: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 86}, 4231 (2001)
676: [arXiv:hep-ph/0012001].
677: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012001;%%
678:
679: %\bibitem{light-sb-Dedes}
680: %A.~Dedes and H.~K.~Dreiner,
681: %``A light bottom squark in the MSSM,''
682: %J. High Energy Phys. \textbf{0106}, 006 (2001)
683: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0009001].
684:
685: %\bibitem{light-sb-Becher}
686: %T.~Becher, S.~Braig, M.~Neubert, and A.~Kagan,
687: %``Flavor-change with ultra-light sbottom and gluinos,''
688: %arXiv:hep-ph/0112129.
689: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0112129;%%
690:
691: \bibitem{light-sb}
692: M.~Carena, S.~Heinemeyer, C.~E.~M.~Wagner, and G.~Weiglein,
693: %``Do electroweak precision data and Higgs mass constraints rule out
694: % a scalar bottom quark with mass of O(5-GeV)?,''
695: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ \textbf{86}, 4463 (2001).
696: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0008023].
697:
698: \bibitem{CLEO-sb}
699: CLEO Collaboration, V.~Savinov {\it et al.},
700: %``Search for a scalar bottom quark with mass 3.5-GeV/c**2 to 4.5-GeV/c**2,''
701: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{63}, 051101 (2001)
702: [arXiv:hep-ex/0010047].
703:
704: \bibitem{DELPHI-sb}
705: DELPHI Collaboration, P.~Abreu {\it et al.},
706: %``A search for heavy stable and longlived squarks and sleptons in e+ e-
707: % collisions at energies from 130-GeV to 183-GeV,''
708: Phys.\ Lett.\ B \textbf{444}, 491 (1998)
709: [arXiv:hep-ex/9811007].
710:
711: \bibitem{Berger}
712: E.~L.~Berger,
713: %``The puzzle of the bottom quark production cross section,''
714: arXiv:hep-ph/0201229, Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A, in press.
715: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201229;%%
716:
717: %\cite{Berger:2002vs}
718: \bibitem{Berger:2002vs}
719: References to an extensive body of recent theoretical papers can be
720: found in
721: E.~L.~Berger, C.~W.~Chiang, J.~Jiang, T.~M.~P.~Tait, and C.~E.~M.~Wagner,
722: %``Higgs Boson Decay into Hadronic Jets,''
723: arXiv:hep-ph/0205342, Phys.~Rev.~D (in press).
724: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205342;%%
725:
726: \bibitem{CLEO-c} CLEO Collaboration, R.~A.~Briere \textit{et al.},
727: $``$CLEO-c and CESR-c: A New Frontier of Weak and Strong Interactions",
728: CLNS 01/1742 (2001).
729:
730: \bibitem{directdecays}
731: If $m_{\tilde{b}} < m_b$, direct decays such as
732: $\Upsilon \rightarrow \tilde{b} \tilde{b}^*$ and
733: $\chi_b \rightarrow \tilde{b} \tilde{b}^*$ could
734: proceed with sufficient rates for observation. See, %%%~\cite{ups-sb}.
735: %%%%%\bibitem{ups-sb}
736: E.~L.~Berger and L.~Clavelli,
737: %``Upsilon decay to a pair of bottom squarks,''
738: Phys.\ Lett.\ B \textbf{512}, 115 (2001)
739: [arXiv:hep-ph/0105147];
740: %\bibitem{chi-sb}
741: E.~L.~Berger and J.~Lee,
742: %``Hadronic decays of chi/bJ into light bottom squarks,''
743: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 114003 (2002)
744: [arXiv:hep-ph/0203092].
745:
746: \bibitem{CUSB-gamma}
747: CUSB Collaboration, P.~Franzini \textit{et al.},
748: %``Limits On Higgs Bosons, Scalar Quarkonia, And Eta (B)'S
749: % From Radiative Upsilon Decays,''
750: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{35}, 2883 (1987).
751:
752: %\cite{Cao:2001rz}
753: \bibitem{Cao:2001rz}
754: One-loop contributions to the ratio $R_b$ at the $Z$ pole are considered in
755: J.~Cao, Z.~Xiong, and J.~M.~Yang,
756: %``Can MSSM with light sbottom and light gluino survive Z-peak constraints?,''
757: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 88}, 111802 (2002);
758: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0111144]
759: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0111144;%%
760: %\cite{Cho:2002mt}
761: %\bibitem{Cho:2002mt}
762: G.~C.~Cho, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 89}, 091801 (2002);
763: %``Light bottom squark and gluino confront electroweak precision measurements,''
764: %arXiv:hep-ph/0204348;
765: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204348;%%
766: %\cite{Baek:2002xf}
767: %\bibitem{Baek:2002xf}
768: S.~W.~Baek,
769: %``Very light sbottom and gluino scenario confronting electroweak precision tests,''
770: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 541}, 161 (2002) .
771: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0205013]
772: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205013;%%
773:
774: \bibitem{BBL}
775: %``Rigorous QCD analysis of inclusive annihilation and production of heavy
776: %quarkonium,''
777: G.~T.~Bodwin, E.~Braaten, and G.~P.~Lepage,
778: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{51}, 1125 (1995); %%% arXiv:hep-ph/9407339;
779: \textbf{55}, 5853(E) (1997).
780:
781: \bibitem{projop}
782: %\cite{Kuhn:1979bb}
783: %\bibitem{Kuhn:1979bb}
784: J.~H.~K\"uhn, J.~Kaplan, and E.~G.~Safiani,
785: %``Electromagnetic Annihilation Of E+ E- Into Quarkonium States With
786: %Even Charge Conjugation,''
787: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B157}, 125 (1979);
788: %\cite{Guberina:1980dc}
789: %\bibitem{Guberina:1980dc}
790: B.~Guberina, J.~H.~K\"uhn, R.~D.~Peccei, and R.~R\"uckl,
791: %``Rare Decays Of The Z0,''
792: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B174}, 317 (1980);
793: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B174,317;%%
794: %\cite{Berger:1980ni}
795: %\bibitem{Berger:1980ni}
796: E.~L.~Berger and D.~Jones,
797: %``Inelastic Photoproduction Of J / Psi And Upsilon By Gluons,''
798: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 23}, 1521 (1981).
799: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D23,1521;%%
800:
801: \bibitem{martin}
802: %\cite{Martin:1980jx}
803: %\bibitem{Martin:1980jx}
804: A.~Martin,
805: %``A Fit Of Upsilon And Charmonium Spectra,''
806: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 93}, 338 (1980);
807: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B93,338;%%
808: %\cite{Martin:1980rm}
809: %\bibitem{Martin:1980rm}
810: %A.~Martin,
811: %``A Simultaneous Fit Of B Anti-B, C Anti-C, S Anti-S, (Bcs Pairs) And C
812: %Anti-S Spectra,''
813: %Phys.\ Lett.\ B
814: {\bf 100}, 511 (1981).
815: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B100,511;%%
816:
817: \bibitem{BKS-new}
818: G.~T.~Bodwin, D.~K.~Sinclair, and S.~Kim,
819: %``Bottomonium decay matrix elements from lattice QCD with two light quarks,''
820: %arXiv:
821: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{65}, 054504 (2002)
822: [arXiv:hep-lat/0107011].
823:
824: %\cite{PDG}
825: \bibitem{PDG}
826: Particle Data Group, D.~E.~Groom {\it et al.},
827: %``Review of particle physics,''
828: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 15}, 1 (2000).
829: %%CITATION = EPHJA,C15,1;%%
830:
831: \bibitem{nappi}
832: C.~R.~Nappi,
833: %``Spin 0 Quarks In E+ E- Annihilation,''
834: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{25}, 84 (1982).
835: \end{thebibliography}
836:
837: \end{document}
838:
839: